@Haridasa Satapatha Brahmana does forbid human sacrifice, Kalika Purana, the primary boo of Shakta tradition in North East, encourages human sacrifice. And while these kind of things happened, no Hindu in ancient times tried to stop it. THe British came and stopped it. So be at least a little thankful to them

@Haridasa The widow could have been simply given a more humane treatment - the option to remarry. Islam and pre-Islamic pagan religion gave women right to remarry. Only Hinduism and Christianity (Jesus' teachings) strictly prohibits divorce. This is simply a gross violation of a woman's Rights and cannot be defended. This isn't subjective, this is a matter of a woman's health.

@Haridasa In matters of rape, Hinduism does what it does with other henious crimes - they look at a person's caste. Go and look through any Dharmasutra or Purana of your choice.

As for age of intercourse, read the Dharmasastras please. It very clearly says, multiple times, that a father should marry off his pre-pubescent child, multiple times. There are testimonies by 20th century Bengali Hindus that they used to do carnal intercourse with little children, even more than 'Muhammedans'. I can link the study to you if you want

@SuradoeUchiha I don't know about Kamalhya temple, but the Ahom kings of Assam used to regularly offer human sacrifices to Devi Dikkaravasini (whose shrine in Sadiya is locally known as that of Tamresvari) & her victims would be those who hadsentenced to death. It was abolished by King Gaurinatha Simha to appease the lower caste Ekasarana Vaisnava rebels. This happened long before the British occupied Assam.

And human sacrifices were also rampant in Bengal. This was mostly done by lower caste & antyaja Hindi dacoits referred to as thuggees & it prospered in the background of slave trade. After the British banned human trafficking & imposed law-n-order, this practice died out naturally. No laws were implemented.

Regarding treatment of widows, the scriptures gave much more religious freedom to them compared to married women. Married women were prohibited from engaging in religiosity without the permission of her husband, but widows didn't had such restrictions. Widows also had the right to offer pinda to 3 generations of her husband, provided she didn't had any living sons & grandsons.

Remarriage of widows was recognised in the Parasarasmrti, but other scriptures laid greater emphasis on lifelong celibacy. British ethnologist H.H. Risley recorded in his survey 'Tribes & Castes of Bengal' that widow remarriage was already prevalent among the low-caste Hindus, but was a taboo among upper-caste Hindus.

However by the time, Isvaracandra Vidyasagara raised the consensus for legalizing widow remarriage, there was this great societal issue of a large no. of childless Hindu widows entering prostitution due to being denied maintainence by their male relatives. The British government intervened only due to lobbying by the reformers placed in plum government positions, otherwise they greatly benefitted from the expansion of prostitution

And regarding child marriage, it also occurred in medieval Europe & went out of fashion only in the 18th century. Just search about it in the Internet,

And regarding consummation of child marriage, the scriptures declare that the marriage is to be consummated only after the onset of menstruation during the ceremony of garbhadhana. That fact cases of Phulmoni Dasi occurred was not due to religious sanction, but due to its abuse. You can't claim that who abuse the l

*abuse of law was the actual law

And your last statement is a clear misinterpretion of the system of kulinism prevalent in Bengali Hindu society. This system was introduced by the king Vallalasena of Bengal (1083-1179) in an attempt to impose Hindu orthodoxy in the state that had a deep Vajrayana influence.

In this system, Bengali brahmins were classified into 3 groups - the higher kulinas, the middling srotriyas & the lowly patitas. A kulina family was deemed to lose it's status if it married it's girls into non-kulina families. Combined with child-marriage & polygamy, kulinism created cases where a kulina girl would be married off to a groom older than the bride's father only because of being the only available kulina.

The specific statement comparing Hindus with Muslims regarding child-brides is attributed to the same Isvaracandra Vidyasagara. He argued against kulinism by stating that while Islam had an upper limit of 4 wives, no such limit was given in Hinduism, which resulted in kulina brahmins having more child brides than Muslims. But your version the same statement is clearly a distorted version

"I don't know about Kamalhya temple" - Then @অনু please familiarize yourself with Kamakhya. The other human sacrifice cases you said is from tribal goddesses, while Kamakhya was a Hindu goddess whose rituals were performed by brahmins. And it had human sacrifices

The Dikkaravasini case you said was a tribal goddess and I couldn't find any evidence that human sacrifices to her only involved those who were sentenced to death

"And human sacrifices were also rampant in Bengal. This was mostly done by lower caste & antyaja Hindi dacoits referred to as thuggees & it prospered in the background of slave trade." - So you DO acknowledge these things happened

"Regarding treatment of widows, the scriptures gave much more religious freedom ... Widows also had the right to offer pinda to 3 generations of her husband, provided she didn't had any living sons & grandsons." - Do you think anybody cares about giving pindas? We are talking about a widow's RIGHTS here, and you are going on about some pindas. How could you?

"Remarriage of widows was recognised in the Parasarasmrti ... was a taboo among upper-caste Hindus." - See how oppressive it was? Only one scripture allows widows to remarry. And also, no provision for divorce. And all this was 'Dharma'. How do you defend such a primitive moral system?

Also, the fact that lower caste Hindus, the ones who are not that attached to Hinduism but to tribal gods, had widow remarriage shows they had better morals than Dharma

"The British government intervened only due to lobbying by the reformers placed in plum government positions, otherwise they greatly benefitted from the expansion of prostitution" - Any evidence of this? Citations?

"And regarding child marriage, it also occurred in medieval Europe " - Yea, but India was not Europe or Arab. India is supposed to be different, superior, full of 'Santana Dharma' - eternal laws guided by knowledgeable rishis. Also, the world had 'child marriage' but mostly for pubescent kids. Pre-pubescent marriage was much much rarer

"And regarding consummation of child marriage, the scriptures declare that the marriage is to be consummated only after the onset of menstruation during the ceremony of garbhadhana." - Which scripture? Any example

"The specific statement comparing Hindus with Muslims regarding child-brides is attributed to the same Isvaracandra Vidyasagara" - I wasn't quoting Vidyasagar. Wait, let me give you the citation

orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/135539/1/…

Page 20-27

Also, no, pre-pubescent marriage doesn't just come from Kulinism. It comes from Dharmashastras. I can give you exact verses

Baudhyana Dharmasutra 4.1.11, Gautama Dharmasutra 18.21-24, Vasistha Dharmasutra 17.70

Plus, there is Purana Skanda Purana 3.2.30.8-9

And of course Mahabharata: Mahabharata 13.41.13-14

@SuradoeUchiha ofc marriage and a young age happened, but intercourse as I gave in Ayurveda was done only once the woman attained maturity, so a legal age for intercourse was conceived based on observation also ages of marriage varied vastly in regards to different tribes and areas. Once, again may scriptures clearly denounce, demonize (in a good sense), and condemn any form of human slaughter.

Also yes there is a rule in Dharmashastras that explains intercourse is based on that menses, but we don't simply ignore Ayurvedic injunction either.

Regarding the widow, I was talking about the choice of Sati and the fact it isn't forced on her, by being treated badly you mean she became an ascetic who lived on her own and generally wasn't allowed remarriage as chastity was seen as a virtue. I don't see anything wrong in this and it certainly isn't the horrible treatment you are making it out to be.

No one here is denying the ages of marriage as I stated in my discussion with you earlier I was simply stating why this age difference was there and the general injunction regarding intercourse, however, it is evident throughout history that there are those who don't follow scriptural injunction, that's why many things were banned they had to present and perhaps even common in those times.

Again historically I don't know, but religiously there are rules for intercourse and you simply isolating certain parts with others is truly astonishing. Also, we as Hindus admit this entire age is Kali Yuga, the worst age, so obviously, scriptural injunction even amongst those of noble birth would've been thrown out the window. Historically, the Catholic Church was a truly disgusting institution does this mean it represents the faith of Christianity ofc not.

@SuradoeUchiha No it states anyone who violates an unwilling maiden immediately deserves death, then he is a non-Brahmana otherwise if he is a Brahmin he would be tonsured and likely exiled and branded. However, I have to agree with you on one thing more punishments should've been given to Brahminas, so this I agree.

I think what happened was some people were sacred to lay harm to a Brahmin priest due to his austerities, so the choice was made to disassociate over punish him corporally, but again I agree on this and still need to look into other sources.

@অনু I would suggest you leave him when Shastras clearly forbid any kind of human slaughter in rituals he ignores that and instead still trumpets examples that would've been condemned by Rishis who wrote such. Also, the goal of the man is to re-populate the population as well as perform other rituals, that's the only reason he was allowed to remarry. Also seeing as men throughout history were the leaders of the household, one women in multiple different households would lead to...

many complications, but multiple women under the same household if they can all be cared for which they could if the man is of an upper varna clearly shows that such an injunction was practical and didn't lead to confusion amongst households and generally regarding multiple wives the child born of one is the child of all.

I also looked into the Phulmoni case and even replied on Reddit to it, but as you said rules banning something would have been written to stop certain practices.

The fact that you are labelling Dikkaravasini as a tribal goddess but not Kamakhya shows that you haven't actually read the Kalika Purana. Dikkaravasini is the name for Ugratara who guarded the easternmost frontier of Kamarupa. And scholars of religious studies believe that Kamakhya first manifested as the Garo goddess Kamake

Since you appear to a hell of a materialist, you willn't understand the spiritual benefit of pindas, & I am not going to explain it yo you.

The same Parasarasmrti also sanctions remarriage of the wife in case of the husband being impotent, renunciate or apostate, so divorce was recognised, but it was a taboo among the upper caste.

Vidyasagara was the Head of the Sanskrit Department of the Fort William College, where bureaucrats & judges coming from Britain were taught Indian languages in order to interact well with the subjects. He was also head of the Calcutta Sanskrit College & Head Observer for the Districts appointed by the Government for education.

So he had good connections with the British Government, in an era when most pandits graduating from the Sanskrit College would end up in the judiciary to interpret & government opinion on Hindu personal law to the British judges

He was in this regard also supported by the Young Bengal - a group of first generation English educated Bengali upper class Hindus who were in plum positions within the government & became infamous for their hedonistic lifestyle. These groups included the like of Haracandra Ghosh (judge of Sessions Court in Calcutta), Radhanath Sikdar (land surveyor) & Daksinaranjana Majumdar (district collector) - rich people with large connections among the British elite.

These people were renowned for supporting the cause of widow remarriage & lobbies for it within the government. And regarding British support for prostitution, just search the history of prostitution in cities like Kolkata & Mumbai created by the British. Wherever colonizers go, they create prostitutes out of the subjugated people.

Eternal laws - that's are overstatement created by ignorant people. A profound study of the scriptures will reveal traces of evolution it it - from agnihotra-regular Vedapatha to sandhyavandana, pindapitryajna to shraddha, sulagava to vrsotsarga, improvement in status of non-brahmins in the absence of ksatriyas & vaisyas. You can't utilise propaganda by ignorant people to criticize the entire system.

And as already somebody else has stated, Kaliyuga saw some profound & gross abuse of laws. And before you start ranting about it - I tell you that I am not an apologist of ill-traditions.

@অনু "Eternal laws - that's are overstatement created by ignorant people." - But 'eternal laws' is what 'Sanatana Dharma' translates to, and what most Hindus believe. If there are no eternal laws in Dharma, what is left in Hinduism?

"The fact that you are labelling Dikkaravasini as a tribal goddess but not Kamakhya shows that you haven't actually read the Kalika Purana. " - I haven't. How could I, there is no English translation. But I read the Wikipedia page for it and came to know about the human sacrifice thing in it. I had already heard it in polemical websites as well as in the news

Often we hear news of some guy or some child being killed by some tantric for 'Goddess'. This is still prevalent in East India. Is this not shameful that Hinduism and Hindus doesn't properly condemn these things?

The word Dharma has no proper equivalent English word. The nearest one is 'Way of Life'. The fact that you are translating dharma to law only reveals your foolishness.

Sorry to break your bubble of childish immaturity, but Wikipedia isn't recognised as a valid source here

Regarding the abuses of a specific group of charlatans who pose as Tantriks, yes it is indeed worthy of condemnation but the lack of it comes due to absence of a central organisation.

@অনু "The fact that you are translating dharma to law only reveals your foolishness." - Then tell me what Dharma is

"Sorry to break your bubble of childish immaturity, but Wikipedia isn't recognised as a valid source here" - So how will I research about obscure topics like Kalika Purana? Also, Wikipedia has a talk section and also citations, so it is not that bad.

But sometimes even centralised organisations sometimes remain silent. Your attempts sound similar to somebody trying to say Catholicism promotes incest because it didn't condemn Spanish kings having sex with their own step-grandmothers & nieces

@SuradoeUchiha Its not my job to lecture others about dharma.

@SuradoeUchiha Firstly, get out of the Wikipedia community. Then learn some Indic languages - Sanskrit & Hindi would be best. And then read the original texts instead of opinion pieces on them by others.

@অনু When Puranas talk about Dharma it seems to be referring to simple Dharmasastras and its laws. Are you sure you are not overestimating things

Regarding Wikipedia, it is impossible to deal with primary sources all the time. Tell me, are you a communist? If not, why? Have you read all of Das Kapital, in German? See the problem with this kind of argument?